'How to be green? Many people have asked us this important question. It's really very simple and requires no expert knowledge or complex skills. Here's the answer. Consume less. Share more. Enjoy life.' Penny Kemp and Derek Wall

And you will need your user name and password for the members site. Only open to GPEW members.

Please support the Rojava motion!

Rojava and the Kurds

Members website discussion here.
Derek Wall*, Adam Ramsay, Alcuin Edwards, Anne Gray, Caroline Allen,
Emily Blyth, John Street, Les Levidow, Peter Allen, Robert Price, Ronald
Lee.
Synopsis
This motion promotes solidarity with the Kurds in Rojava where they
are promoting a self-governing ecological society, feminism and
pluralism. Rojava is under attack by Islamic fundamentalists and should
be given solidarity.
Motion
Add into RoPS
“On Rojava and the Kurds
Background
The Kurds of Syria created a self-governing territory in 2012, known
as Rojava (Western Kurdistan, Syria), which includes three cantons,
Kobane, Afrin and Jazire. Rojava, while predominantly Kurdish contains
communities self-identifying as Syriacs, Arabs, Armenians, Christians
and other groups The largest political party in Rojava, the Peoples
Democratic Union (PYD), is the sister Party of the Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK). Both political parties are inspired by the ideas of the
social ecologist Murray Bookchin and the writings of Abdullah Ocalan.
Rojava is being governed with attention to principles shared with our
Green Party including grassroots democracy, ecological economics and
social justice. Rojava promotes secularism, pluralism and feminism.
Described by some as the Chiapas of the Middle East it is a beacon of
hope not only in the region but globally Sadly relations with neighbour
Turkey are tense and Rojava has been assaulted by Islamic
fundamentalists belonging to the so called Islamic State.
It is vital that the Green Party of England and Wales shows
solidarity with Rojava, defends their revolution, supports its Charter
and self-autonomy based on pluralism, freedom of belief, gender equality
and democracy as a model for all of Syria and learns more about this
rare example of an attempt to create a sustainable,self-governing and
feminist society.
1 The Green Party of England and Wales calls on Turkey to recognise
Kurdish aspirations for peace and self-determination, recognising Rojava
and negotiating with the Kurdish communities for a full and just peace
settlement.
2 The Green Party of England and Wales supports the campaign to
delist the PKK from the list of European Union and UK terrorist
organisations.
3 The Green Party of England and Wales will promote greater understanding and solidarity with Rojava."

27 Dec 2014

Well with over 30,000 members the Green Party of England and Wales is reviewing its structures, do we need to change Green Party Executive, Green Party Regional Council and reboot are internal democracy?

I have been sent the following and would value you other suggestions on governance if you have them I will blog! This is one perspective parts of which I agree others of which I don't.

IMPORTANT! You probably
know that the party is currently consulting on future governance
structures. This affects all of us, and the consultation ends on
31st December.

At the heart of this are
some really deep questions of principle, as well as specifics of
how the party is structured. On the principles, I've consulted
with a few like-minded colleagues and put together this charter
which I hope will help people (if they agree with any of it)
respond to the consultation. I would recommend you all to respond
to the consultation, but whether you have time or not, I would
encourage you to pledge support for part or all of the charter by
emailing greencharterbox@gmail.com or leaving a comment here:
https://my.greenparty.org.uk/forum/national-forums/general-member-discussion/6885

We firmly believe in the
need to review and reform Green Party governance. The current
Party governance systems and structures are often insufficient to
cope with the demands that a democratic, inclusive and
participatory political party places on them. We believe that any
changes proposed should adhere to the following principles:

1) We must retain the
principle of a member-led Party with local decision-making taking
precedence, and of a decision-making structure in which our
leaders and officers work to empower the members, rather than
exercise power over them.

2) Members should be first
and foremost members of their local parties, then of regional
parties, then of GPEW. Democratically agreed decisions and
strategies at a local level should be made by local parties,
subject to the need for local parties to cooperate with one
another and subject to formal and transparent safeguards that core
Green Principles are being adhered to.

3) The Party Conference
must remain the sovereign decision-making body of GPEW, agreeing
all policy, organisational and constitutional changes. But all
efforts should be made to increase the numbers and diversity of
members who attend.

4) Responsibility for the
management of GPEW between conferences must lie with bodies that
are directly elected by the entire Party membership, a GPEW
conference, or an England-and-Wales-wide conference of an
organised section of the party (such as Young Greens).

5) Members of all elected
decision-making bodies must all be accountable to, and recallable
by, the Party members that elected them.

6) Green MPs, MEPs,
Assembly Members, and councillors should be accountable to both
their electorate and - with power of recall as a last resort- the
Local or Regional Party that selected them as candidates, but
there should be a formal link between the party on a national
level and all elected Greens (and Green Peers) with ultimate power
of recall held by conference.

7) All decisions at
conference and within elected bodies should be made democratically
following standing orders and a full and inclusive debate, with
diversity of participants maximised.

8) GPEW elected bodies
should, as far as this can practically be achieved, seek to
contain a minimum quota of members who identify as non-male, BAME,
LGBTIQ, disabled and other groups that are disadvantaged in
society and are underrepresented within the party and/or in
politics. These must, where possible, be directly elected by
members of an appropriate self-organised group. The party should
also seek to maintain a good geographical spread of members of
elected bodies.

9) Paid staff should be
employed to support and/or advise on democratically agreed
policies and strategies. In order to remain a member-led party,
the decisions of officers elected by members should always take
precedence over non-elected staff, although those staff will often
be expected to give expert advice.

10) Powers of any
disciplinary bodies should be limited to taking action where
members are in breach of core Green principles or preventing the
party from being a safe space for members. Genuine political
disagreements, where all members are acting in accordance with
core party principles, should be kept separate from this process.

11) Members who are not
elected to a specific committee should find it easy to be aware of
the work of that committee, and all papers, agendas and minutes
(except anything referring to staffing, disciplinary or sensitive
personal issues, or to sensitive electoral strategy decisions)
should be made available to all Party members.

12) The party's governance
structure should remain geared towards affecting change through
both electoral and extra-electoral methods. The structure must
help the party to be an outward looking, cooperative part of a
wider movement, seeking to work with like-minded groups and bodies
where possible.

The
European Parliament's environment committee today voted to reject new
fuel quality rules proposed by the EU Commission, which failed to
include
a separate methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions from tar
sands oil (1). After the vote, Green climate change spokesperson
Bas Eickhout, who co-sponsored the rejection, said:

"Tar
sands oil should not and cannot be part of the European fuel mix. The
production of oil from tar sands is not only dirty and damaging
to the environment, it also has a far greater impact on climate change
than conventional oil. If the EU is serious about combatting climate
change, it needs to be consistent with all its policies.

"In
voting for this rejection, MEPs have voted against easing the way for
tar sands oil to enter the European market. Despite the spin, tar
sands oil has nothing to do with European energy security but is
instead merely about placating the Canadian government in the context of
the EU-Canada trade agreement. We do not need this highly-polluting
fuel and we should not be encouraging its production.

"The
bigger picture is the future of the fuel quality directive itself. It
was one of the 5 legislative measures adopted by the EU at the
end of 2008 as part of its climate and energy package and is a crucial
piece of legislation that should deliver actual emissions reductions for
2020 and beyond. Today's vote should be seen as the basis for providing
a robust methodology for EU fuel quality
rules beyond 2020."

(1)
Under the EU's fuel quality directive, suppliers are obliged to reduce
the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of transport fuel 6% by 2020
(compared to 2010). Originally, the idea was to have separate default
values for calculating the lifecycle emissions of different sources of
fossil fuels, so oil from tar sands would have its own greenhouse gas
intensity value, separate to conventional oil.
However, earlier this year, the Commission came out with a new
proposal, with no separate method for tar sands oil. This would
essentially make it much easier for increasing the share of oil from tar
sands on the European market.

Today's vote by the environment committee must now be confirmed by the European Parliament plenary as a whole.

*Major new road schemes 'economically questionable as well as environmentally reckless'.

The Coalition government’s re-announcement of plans to invest £15bn on roads over the next five years locks in our unhealthy, carbon-intensive transport policy, says the Green Party, the only party committed to delivering a genuine transport revolution.

Under the plans - initially announced in 2013 - £15bn will be spent on 100 new road improvement schemes and1,300 new miles of extra lanes will be added to motorways and A roads.

More must be done to reduce petrol and diesel use and make walking and cycling safer says the Green Party. Yet more roads are not the answer to our transport crisis.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“The Prime Minister’s obsession with major new road schemes is economically questionable as well as environmentally reckless.

“The Coalition’s claim to be the ‘greenest government ever’ is already in tatters. Recycling discredited road building policies from the Thatcher Government of the 1980s will only make matters worse.

“Road building simply does not reduce congestion. For decades, even the Government’s own studies have been showing this. Road building encourages more traffic, worsens air pollution, and causes severe loss and harm to our precious countryside. As new roads simply clog up, the economic arguments evaporate – especially when compared to the alternatives.”

Rupert Read, Cambridge MP candidate and Transport Spokesperson, said:

“That the government is doubling down on its expensive, unhealthy, and carbon-intensive transport policy on the same day that it is pulling a political stunt on NHS (1) funding speaks volumes about the Coalition’s warped priorities. Imagine what our NHS could do with this £15billion rather than the paltry £2billion currently on the table.”

"The government announcement of £15 billion to be spent on roads across the country is both short sighted and retrograde. If you build roads you get more traffic clogging up our towns cities and villages, adding to road danger, air pollution and congestion. The government should be investing in our public transport infrastructure and building convenient networks of cycling and walking routes rather than creating more traffic jams.

"The more we learn about the damaging impact of diesel pollution and physical inactivity on our health, the more urgent the need for this change in direction and priorities becomes. The £100m offered for cycling is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions being spent every year on roads while walking does not even get a mention. If the government is serious about creating jobs and supporting a sustainable economy they should be seizing the huge opportunities available from investing in new, less carbon-intensive transport technologies and looking to reduce our need to travel by car."